WASHINGTON, June 20 (UPI) -- The likelihood of war has been reduced, but India and Pakistan have made little to no progress in resolving the Kashmir conflict during the third round of normalization talks, set to conclude in July, according to a new report.
Compromise has been limited to peripheral issues and the stability of the normalization talks remains very fragile, said Dr. Samina Ahmed, who Monday presented a report by the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think tank, to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C.
The activity of militant jihadi groups, the continued Indian military presence and human rights violations all threaten the delicate balance of normalization talks, Ahmed said, noting that Pakistan and India lack the political will or international pressure to significantly change their policy stances.
"The gap in the positions between the two states is still huge," Ahmed said. "There isn't a narrowing of the gap at all. And the approaches are different."
Pakistan would like to resolve the issue of Kashmir immediately, while India would prefer to move forward with normalization slowly, building trust on other issues before addressing Kashmir, according to Ahmed. The disparity in ideal solutions and approaches makes it even less likely that the countries will come to an agreement in the near future.
Given this reality, Ahmed recommended that Pakistan, India and the international community focus on ensuring that normalization talks do not break down instead of pushing for a solution at an impractical pace. Pakistan, India and the United States have a potential role in decreasing the likelihood of breakdown, she said.
The ICG believes that India, which holds that a strong military presence in the region is necessary to protect its citizens, should consider downsizing in Kashmir. A number of experts say the militarization of Kashmir has caused widespread disillusionment and alienation, enticing young people from a range of ideological perspectives to consider the jihadi cause.
"This call for demilitarization has found an audience amongst the Kashmiris; even the ruling parties have supported demilitarization," Ahmed said. "If the Indians are serious about winning over the Kashmiris, this is something they should consider -- this demand for reducing the security presence."
Ahmed did, however, admit that a significant Indian military withdrawal is unlikely unless violence in the region decreases. Also, a link between Indian military presence in Kashmir and an increase in militant activity is far from undisputed.
"I think the movement in Kashmir has been a cyclical thing," said Theresita Schaffer, director of the South Asia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It goes through periods where the Kashmiris despair of any meaningful change and sign up for the movement and periods where they're disgusted with the death and destruction and turn away from it."
The ICG report also insists that Pakistanis must take a harder stance against jihadis in Kashmir. While many in India believe Pakistan directly supports jihadi groups in Kashmir, Pakistan disputes the claim. But most experts agree that the Pakistani government has not sufficiently cracked down on militant groups.
"Pakistan has a policy of managing the jihadis rather than putting them out of business," Schaffer said.
Experts say that India has been fairly restrained in blaming Pakistan for violence in the region, but a major jihadi attack -- supported by the Pakistani government or not -- could bring the normalization talks to an abrupt halt.
"The jihadi parties and hardliners believe no peacefully negotiated settlement between India and Pakistan that doesn't give them what they want is acceptable and they have the capacity of derailing the normalization process," Ahmed said. "Which is why it is really important that the Pakistanis end the support of jihadi groups and disband their networks. It's absolutely essential, because these spoilers could derail the process quite easily."
The Pakistani position on global jihad contradicts its position on regional jihad, a distinction Ahmed says is impossible to sustain in the long run.
"I think they're making these artificial distinctions, saying 'These are jihadis that are conducting internal jihad, they are a threat to Pakistan. These are jihadis that are conducting regional jihad, they are possibly an asset and those are jihadis that are conducting international jihad -- al-Qaida and its allies -- that are a threat to global stability,'" Ahmed explained. "The problem with those watertight compartments is that jihadis flow from one to the other."
ICG believes the United States could play a vital role in encouraging both countries to adopt these types of recommendations in order to safeguard normalization talks. Both countries believe that continued peace is vital to maintaining and improving their reputation and status in the global community. ICG believes that Pakistan and India's desire to maintain good relations with the United States could be used as leverage if the White House put more pressure on the countries to stabilize the peace process.
In particular, Ahmed believes U.S. insistence that the Pakistani government crack down on jihadists in Kashmir would have a significant effect.
"The United States playing a lead role in saying zero tolerance is going to go a very long way, because that is the one relationship and signal the (military government of Pakistan) takes very, very seriously," Ahmed said.
However, many believe it is unlikely that the United States will play any direct role in discussions between Pakistan and India, or involve itself too deeply in the conflict on any side.
"The United States has not played a direct role in this dialogue, it has been encouraging from the sidelines," Schaffer said. "I would expect it to continue it to do this and not get directly involved."
